Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chidush


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Chidush

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is perhaps more suited for Wiktionary, and indeed novella is in the dictionary. As it stands now, this article is unsourced, non-notable and not even written correctly. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk)  14:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Agree with nominator that this belongs in Wiktionary. Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NAD and it definitely does not even meet WP:GNG, as its just a definition of a word. -  Galatz Talk  15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete ONLY when Wiktionary has the entry. Keep per below L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an encyclopedic concept covered widely in talmudic and other halachic literature in Hebrew, that suffers from a rather clear systemic bias. Book length coverage in English includes Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues, which includes a chapter on the topic that is chock full of sources. There are ample sources available as seen from searches on the word in Google Scholar and Google Books, which barely touch the surface of material available in Hebrew on the topic. This is a crappy article for an encyclopedic topic that needs expansion, improvement and better sourcing, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: So you don't think it belongs merely in the Wiktionary? Just wondering L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Author's note:
 * I do not feel entitled to a vote. (but)...
 * Would prefer to bring it up to standards
 * This article has been nominated for a quick demise. Meanwhile it is  being discussed.


 * Although it's discussion may or may not be considered a conversation, my OR (Original Research) on this is: see Conversation,
 * which says "if permanency or the ability to review such information is important, written communication may be ideal." This seems to be in :contradiction to the "topnote" that says "written exchanges are usually not referred to as conversations."


 * My marketing clause? "Shape it, don't drape it" (i.e. don't bury it). Pi314m (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * author at bat: Per (above) "Keep" comment, seeking "expansion, improvement" I've added a new section: Why is Chidush important Pi314m (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pi314m your addition, like most of the article, appears to be an argument to convince the reader why chidush is important. ::This does not read like any other Wikipedia article, as it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion, describing the topic rather than propounding some kind of argument or trying to persuade the reader about something. There is also a lack of understanding of English grammar in the presentation. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Encyclopaedia Judaica (Keter Publishing House Ltd, Jerusalem, Israel, 1972) has coverage from page 464 to 468, and Wiki is even contemplating deletion? What are all the Wiki policies about if not to describe "how to"
 * First this was supposed to go in Wiktionary. Then it was deemed non-notable (as if all the book titles with the word Chidush, Chidushei, Chidushim didn't make it notable). It was described as "just a definition." The same could be said about words like Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, which in some places today they don't even rate being called a word - think STEM. Nuff said? Just a few more (words).
 * Wiki articles wearing hats, hatnotes, etc. are applenty. Some are tagged as stubs, others go on and on and on... Eef me Anglish iz innerproperiately adikwit, than bye know someone wood hav simply rewrotten itt an brung it up too standerd, no? Pi314m (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * author at second base: Now that the article has 26 references, including two encyclopedias
 * one of them in the public domain (used 3 times) -and-
 * another (cited twice)
 * would this article be "more encylopedic" if it were quadrupled in size by just dumping in everything from the Public Domain source (except for the already noted above 3 citations) as  ==SOME MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT== . There are numerous Wiki articles, albeit topped with HatNotes of less than glory, that are minor rewrites of Public Domain texts, and they're not facing discuss-to-delete. Is my comment unfair? To whom? Pi314m (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * it's very important for you to read the Wikipedia pages mentioned in the welcome on your talk page so you will start writing articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia. In particular, the lack of sentence case and all-lowercase subheads is rather amateurish. Regarding developing an article about a Hebrew term, please look up other Wikipedia articles; I could offer my own example, Chavrusa. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep plenty of WP:RS on this subject .  --David Tornheim (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify If there are indeed "plenty of WP:RS on this subject" they haven't been added to the article. As it stands now, after efforts from the original author, the quality of the article has actually gone down by being loaded with WP:OR and personal opinions.  The added references don't show any sign of significant coverage in RS, being mostly either short or material like blogs and answer websites.  There is indication in the search results of possible notability, but that would need to be incorporated and then re-evaluated.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - The   Magnificentist  20:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely notable per WP:GNG, but requires A LOT of work towards following WP:MOS and content guidelines. Will take time, but I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and start. --IsaacSt (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.